RAJU DAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant Raju Das, aged about 27 years, has been convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for having throttled his daughter Basanti aged about 11/2 years, to death. This occurrence took place on 10 -3 -1964 at about 5 p.m. in his own house in village Kharida within the jurisdiction of Police Station Hinjili which is at a distance of about a mile from the village. On that day, the inmates of the house were only three: viz, (1) the Appellant Raju Das, (2) his wife Kanaka (p.w.1) aged about 25 years and (3) his father Jure Das (p.w.9) aged about 60 years apart from the deceased child Basanti. P.w.1 is the second wife of the Appellant. His first wife is said to have deserted him sometime back. The second marriage of the Appellant with p.w.1 is said to have taken place only about three years ago; p.w.1 also was said to have, by that time, lost her first husband Nania Panigrahi. According to the prosecution the Appellant had the suspicion that the deceased child Basanti was an illegitimate child and this was said to be the motive which led the Appellant to throttle the child to death, At the time of the occurrence it is said that p.w.9 was taking rest in the front verandah of the house while the Appellant was lying in his bedroom, on the backside, along with the child who was then sleeping and p.w.1 was busy in fetching water from a well village. When she returned home with the pitcher filled with water she found to her surprise, that the Appellant was throttling the child with his left hand and striking at the back of the child with his right hand. The mouth of the child had been gagged with a piece of cloth (M.O. II). At that she exclaimed that her husband was throttling her daughter to death and ran to the front verandah of her house to report the matter to her father -in -law Jure Das (p.w.9). P.w.9 having heard her exclaiming came inside the house along with p.w.1 and the two together took the child from there to the backside verandah of the house and tried to bring the child who was then unconscious back to her senses. Their attempt however proved of no avail. In the meantime, the two neighbours p.ws.2 and 3 who were then sitting in front of the house having heard p.w.1 exclaiming rushed towards the house but the Appellant shut the door from within. Thereupon they along with others went to the bari from the backside and saw the child there lying in a pitiable condition. Finally when p.w.1 found that the condition of the child was getting precarious she removed the child to the hospital at Hinjilikot but the child expired on the way. So from there instead of going to the hospital she with the dead child in her hand went to the police station in Hinjili. At the police station the Investigating Officer (p.w.10) recorded the first information report on her statement at 7 p.m..

(2.) THE defence suggested at the trial was that the Appellant at the time of occurrence bad been out to case himself When he returned home he found his wife p.w.1 closeted with another male inside his house. That male fled away from the house on finding the Appellant approaching him. The Appellant found the child getting restless on his bed. Then he challenged p.w.1 as to who that male was and as to why the child was getting restless. In substance therefore according to the defence the child was throttled not by the Appellant but by some third person.

(3.) THE conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge is based mainly on -(i) the evidence of the doctor (p.w.4); (ii) the oral testimony of the solitary eye -witness p.w.1 and that of other three neigh hours p.ws.2, 3 and 5 who happened to arrive there immediately after the occurrence; and (iii) the conduct of the Appellant and his wife (p.w.1) as found in the course of that transaction, or immediately thereafter.